", odds would now be 80% against success, 20 failure," So that...

", odds would now be 80% against success, 20 failure,"

So that will be 100% failure Jim ???

" ALL signs pointing that way " ???

I'm sorry Jimbo but what a load of crud.

How can U possibly state ALL factors point to failure ?

Please enlighten me as to what in the last annmnt points to total failure.

They r allowing the water based frac juice to imbibe and soak into the shale to allow the hydrocarbon capillary forces and over-pressure to initiate the flow.

THATS what I got from the annmnt.

The fact that they go on to say,

" Further analyses are required to determine the impact, if any, of the performance of the Icewine#2 "

Is simply stating the obvious that the requirement to have a soak/imbibe phase wasn't necessarily expected but was always going to be on the cards if they had issues with initial hydrocarbon flow.

There are many ways that such a process may affect the risk profile of Ice 2V BUT in no way does it mean this is going to be total failure as yet and to state that ALL signs point to this is tantamount to misinformation.

So U are saying the companies expectations are rubbish and the fact they r shutting in for STATED pressure build up and imbibing of water molecules is just a load of old cods ?

Id REEEEEALY like U to substantiate that with some more detail Jimbo.

If none forthcoming then I guess we wait until the 6 weeks is up and then see what happens.

Either You will be right or we will see some more progress.

To put probabilities on such statements is also a load of rubbish as its a binary outcome.

Either the post 6 weeks we will see hydrocarbons or we wont.

A bit of detailed justification is needed to make Ur post have even the slightest bit of credibility and there r plenty of avenues to make such an argument. But will U be bothered to get stuck right into some of the geo stuff required ?

d.